Yeah, uh, maybe let's not make that comparison, which is kind of demeaning to actual victims of actual trauma. We're still talking about a hockey team here.
NRS. Thanks for keeping me honest.
I have given this a lot of thought—this may end up being my longest post on this site. I spent quite a few hours and some money supporting organizations that try to help actual victims. So I really thought about what I said and if it was demeaning.
This disconnect seems to be that you and others are assuming the abuse to be violence. Of course domestic violence should be taken more seriously than a sports team. I think we agree.
However, in crisis counseling training we learned that limiting abuse to violence or even obvious verbal abuse misses a good deal of the way that power is used improperly within a relationship. In the training, men (it was almost always men—I admit as a man I sort of had this mindset) would argue that calling "disagreements" or "difficult decisions" abuse would only lead to a victim mentality and in that sense diminished actual abuse. But after learning about how power can be manipulated in relationships to make the less powerful member feel both dependent and insecure, I gained a broader understanding of the concept. One understanding was that many who are being mistreated will argue that the one with power is doing the right thing.
I believe everyone who posts here has, by definition, a relationship with the Canes organization. I believe that within that relationship they are being mistreated. So let me demonstrate what I was referring to. I will refer to partner and you. (I am completely aware that the analogy is far from perfect.)
You struggled with debt and one of the things you really liked about your new partner was his/her commitment to spending within means and having a financial plan.
The partner decides that you spend too much money when you hang out with your long-time friends—so the solution is to ignore the friends.
The partner and you both own vacation property. Yours is at the same lake where several family members also have property. The partner has property in another state, but since partner's maintenance costs are lower the partner makes the decision to sell your property.
You have a handy-woman who not only does her job well but who gives you enjoyment by doing the job with aplomb and having conversations with you that your find meaningful. However, you pay her slightly above the going rate, so partner decides she is an unnecessary expense.
When your relationship began to turn serious, you explicitly asked your partner to help you make tough decisions around your finances. Your debt is all but gone. But you don't have the connections to friends, family, and even a trusted worker that you previously had. By any sensible definition this relationship has become abusive. Your partner used the power you offered to remove things you value beyond their cost.
You could argue that you are better off because your debt is going away. You could argue that you were in debt because your friends had more money and didn't consider your finances when making plans; you could argue that it was just too costly to vacation at the lake where you spend time with your family; you could argue that hiring a handy-person should rightly only be a business transaction. But if you did, you would be enabling your abuser.
Again, I admit there is no moral equivalence. But the point still holds that power is being used to marginalize people, in this case employees and the fans. See we liked Chuck Kaiton's long-time presence and Mike Vellucci's love of developing quality players and equally good young men. We placed real value in the Checkers having a North Carolina connection. We felt good even when the Canes were bad because of how Forslund does his job. Taking all those things away just because you can sure looks like you think your current customers are as important as you previous ones. Some will argue the previous ones weren't abused, but that really just proves my original point.
